Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 427–446 | Cite as

The Construction of Gender Among Working-Class Cohabiting Couples

Article

Abstract

Utilizing three typologies that emerged from the data, we examine how 30 working-class cohabiting couples construct gender through paid and domestic labor. Contesting couples contain at least one partner, usually the woman, who attempts to construct more egalitarian arrangements. In Conventional and Counter-Conventional couples, neither partner is actively contesting their gendered arrangements. Among Conventional couples each partner adheres to a traditional division of labor. Normative gender arrangements are upended in Contesting and Counter-Conventional couples when the female partner resists financial dependence on her male partner or if or the male partner does not earn enough income to provide even for himself. Nevertheless, institutionalized gender roles appear deeply entrenched among the working-class cohabitors in this study.

Keywords

Cohabitation Gender roles Housework Paid work Working class 

References

  1. Aronson, Pamela. 2003. Feminists or ‘postfeminists’?: Young women’s attitudes toward feminism and gender relations. Gender and Society 17(5): 903–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bianchi, Suzanne M., Melissa A. Milkie, Liana C. Sayer, and John P. Robinson. 2000. Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces 79(1): 191–228.Google Scholar
  3. Bolzendahl, Catherine, and Daniel Myers. 2004. Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Change in women and men, 1974–1998. Social Forces 83(2): 759–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bratter, Jenifer, and Rosalind King. 2008. ‘But will it last?’ Marital instability among interracial and same-race couples. Family Relations 57(2): 160–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brines, Julie. 1994. Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. The American Journal of Sociology 100(3): 652–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brines, Julie, and Kara Joyner. 1999. The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review 64(3): 333–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burawoy, Michael. 1998. The extended case method. Sociological Theory 16(1): 4–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandra, Anjani, Gladys M. Martinez, William D. Mosher, Joyce C. Abma, and Jo Jones. 2005. Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 national survey of family growth. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics 23.Google Scholar
  9. Charmaz, Kathy. 1983. The grounded theory method: An explanation and interpretation. In Contemporary field research, ed. R. Emerson, 109–126. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  10. Cherlin, Andrew. 2004. The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family 66(4): 848–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciabattari, Teresa. 2004. Cohabitation and housework: The effects on marital intentions. Journal of Marriage and Family 66(1): 118–125.Google Scholar
  12. Clarkberg, Martin, Russell Stolzenberg, and Linda Waite. 1995. Attitudes, values, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions. Social Forces 74(2): 609–632.Google Scholar
  13. Coltrane, Scott. 1996. Family man. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cunningham, Mick. 2007. Influences of women’s employment on the gendered division of household labor over the life course: Evidence from a 31-year panel study. Journal of Family Issues 28(3): 422–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Ruijter, Esther, Judith Treas, and Phillip Cohen. 2005. Outsourcing the gender factory: Living arrangements and service expenditures on female and male tasks. Social Forces 84(1): 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deutsch, Francine. 1999. Halving it all: How equally shared parenting works. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Deutsch, Francine. 2007. Undoing gender. Gender and Society 21(1): 106–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferree, Martha Marx. 1990. Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and Family 52(4): 866–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerson, Kathleen. 1993. No man’s land: Men’s changing commitments to work and family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Gerson, Kathleen. 2009. The unfinished revolution: How a new generation is reshaping family, work, and gender in America. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Greenstein, Theodore. 1996. Gender ideology and perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor: Effects on marital quality. Social Forces 74(3): 1029–1042.Google Scholar
  22. Hertz, Rosanna. 1995. Separate but simultaneous interviewing of husbands and wives: Making sense of their stories. Qualitative Inquiry 1(4): 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1989. The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  24. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 2001. Domestica: Immigrant workers cleaning and caring in the shadows of affluence. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. John, Daphne, Beth Ann Shelton, and Kristen Luschen. 1995. Race, ethnicity, gender, and perceptions of fairness. Journal of Family Issues 16(3): 357–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kennedy, Sheela, and Larry Bumpass. 2008. Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research 19: 1663–1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kroska, Amy. 2008. Examining husband-wife differences in the meaning of family financial support. Sociological Perspectives 51(1): 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lavee, Yoav, and Ruth Katz. 2002. Division of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality. Journal of Marriage and Family 64(1): 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lorber, Judith. 1994. Paradoxes of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, Patricia Yancey. 2004. Gender as a social institution. Social Forces 82(4): 1249–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCabe, Janice. 2005. What’s in a label? The relationship between feminist self-identification and ‘feminist’ attitudes among US women and men. Gender and Society 19(4): 480–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller, Amanda, and Sharon Sassler. 2010. Stability and change in the division of labor among cohabiting couples. Sociological Forum 25(4): 677–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller, Amanda, Sharon Sassler, and Dela Kusi-Appouh. 2011. The specter of divorce: Views from working and middle class cohabitors. Family Relations 60(5): 602–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orrange, Robert M. 2002. Aspiring law and business professionals’ orientations to work and family life. Journal of Family Issues 23(2): 287–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Potuchek, Jean. 1997. Who supports the family? Gender and breadwinning in dual-earner marriages. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Shelley J. Correll. 2004. Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender and Society 18(4): 510–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Risman, Barbara. 1998. Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Risman, Barbara. 2009. From doing to undoing: Gender as we know it. Gender and Society 23(1): 81–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rubin, Lillian. 1976. Worlds of pain: Life in the working class family. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  40. Rubin, Lillian. 1994. Families on the fault line: America’s working class speaks about the family, the economy, race, and ethnicity. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  41. Sanchez, Laura, and Emily Kane. 1996. Women’s and men’s constructions of perceptions of housework fairness. Journal of Family Issues 17(3): 358–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sassler, Sharon. 2004. The process of entering into cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family 66(2): 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sassler, Sharon, and Frances Goldscheider. 2004. Revisiting Jane Austen’s theory of marriage timing: Union formation among American men in the late 20th century. Journal of Family Issues 25(2): 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sassler, Sharon, and Kara Joyner. 2011. Social exchange and the progression of sexual relationships in emerging adulthood. Social Forces 90(1): 223–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sassler, Sharon, and Amanda Miller. 2011a. Class differences in cohabitation processes. Family Relations 60(2): 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sassler, Sharon, and Amanda Miller. 2011b. Waiting to be asked: Gender, power, and relationship progression among cohabiting couples. Journal of Family Issues 32(4): 482–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shelton, Beth, and Daphne John. 1993. Does marital status make a difference? Housework among married and cohabiting men and women. Journal of Family Issues 14(3): 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. South, Scott, and Glenna Spitze. 1994. Housework in marital and nonmarital households. American Sociological Review 59(3): 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strauss, Anselm, and Juliette Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Sullivan, Oriel. 2011. An end to gender display through the performance of housework? A review and reassessment of the quantitative literature using insights from the qualitative literature. Journal of Family Theory and Review 3(1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sullivan, Oriel, and Scott Coltrane. 2008. Men’s changing contribution to housework and childcare. Discussion Paper on Changing Family Roles, Briefing paper prepared for the 11th Annual Conference of the Council on Contemporary Families, April 25–26, 2008, available at http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=briefingPapers&ext=menshousework.
  52. Sum, Andrew, Ishwar Khatiwada, Joseph McLaughlin, and Sheila Palma. 2011. No country for young men: Declining labor market prospects for low-skilled men in the United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 635(1): 24–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thornton, Arland, and Linda Young-DeMarco. 2001. Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family 63(4): 1009–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tichenor, Veronica. 2005. Maintaining men’s dominance: Negotiating identity and power when she earns more. Sex Roles 53(3): 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. West, Candice, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender and Society 1(2): 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesUniversity of IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Policy Analysis & ManagementCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations